<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (11) TMI 901 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297752</link>
    <description>A principal establishment covered by a valid notification under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act, 1948 brings within coverage all functionally integrated branches operating under its control and supervision. The statutory scheme treats employees working in connection with the establishment as covered once the main unit is brought within the Act, and the notification is not treated as requiring separate State-wise extension for every branch where the business is a single integrated undertaking. Applying this construction, the Bombay branch was held to fall within the existing notification issued for the principal establishment, so no separate Maharashtra notification was necessary and contribution liability for that branch was recoverable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2021 10:31:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 901 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297752</link>
      <description>A principal establishment covered by a valid notification under the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act, 1948 brings within coverage all functionally integrated branches operating under its control and supervision. The statutory scheme treats employees working in connection with the establishment as covered once the main unit is brought within the Act, and the notification is not treated as requiring separate State-wise extension for every branch where the business is a single integrated undertaking. Applying this construction, the Bombay branch was held to fall within the existing notification issued for the principal establishment, so no separate Maharashtra notification was necessary and contribution liability for that branch was recoverable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>